Read on Twitter
If you argue against lockdowns based on what the numbers are doing you will always lose. Because there will always be some new wave or variant or hospital capacity issue coming
Lockdowns must be opposed on fundamentals: the rule of law primarily, and various conventions about not using humans in live experiments and against collective punishment. Curiously these come from wars. Think on that
Covidmaniacs have an innate sense of moral superiority that is coming from being part of the in-group. And they are, by and large, collectivists. Your rights and your demands to have them respected can only mean that you are selfish and dangerous.
So don't fight on their turf. Appeals to morality and shame should be ignored. Apart from violating fundamental laws they are pursuing self-destruction as a means to an end. But now, they can't even articulate the end. So there is no basis for an argument.
If you find that lockdowns violate every fibre of your intellectual being and yet you feel unable to rise to your own defence, it's because you're fighting a foe who is not any defensible ethical, legal, or moral surface. You're fighting from principles. They're consumed by fear
I no longer see some eureka moment where all the fear and the self-interested forces that are exploiting that fear suddenly have a eureka moment and realize that we have seen the enemy, and the enemy is them
But I do believe that as more people face the fear and regain their senses there will be a watershed moment, and the covid hysteria will start to recede, and some day, we will add these global mass lockdowns to the list of conventions never to be repeated
And thank you to all 30 of my followers for enduring this and my grammatical errors and typos 